Reviews and Problems with Sigma APO 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG
Showing 1-9 of 9
3 April 2010
Conclusion: may be good as a cheap start up, I got some sharp images of the moon, until I removed the UV filter, F/14 and in a tripod, (UV filters will make images a bit softer) Images comes out with a brownish color, lens creep like s...t, super slow and noise focus, it fitted loose in my nikon D90, ( now I am in the canon side) my lens looked great and solid, paint was great and like new, it didn't pealed off like others say, any way I don't recomend this lens if you are not in a...
Pros: got some sharp images of the moon in a tripod at F/14 no UV filter, I can't think of any other, oh! the foam paded lens case, better then canon's and nikon
Cons: super slow and noise focus, hunts, lens creaps, fits looose in Nikon D90 body,
Conclusion: I highly recommend this lens for beginners. My problem with it is that when trying to take photos (of wildlife in my case) from a distance they turn out very soft and noisy. From a moderate distance a small aperture of 8-14 is needed for decent quality. The only time good quality photos are taken is when the subject is very close to the lens.
Pros: Great price, excellent for beginners, tripod collar, good quality at a close distance.
Cons: Horrible autofocus (noisy, hunts, and slow), lens creep; bad, soft quality when photos are taken from a distance. Not sharp.
Conclusion: Pre-purchase reasons for buying this lens: · It sat well priced with my healthy but balanced hobby budget. · It cast a full frame image circle (making it more future proof and able to be shared with my film based camera). · Its 135mm-400mm focal length complimented well my existing Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5.
Summary: 1. This lens can be a great lens, or a headache. Somehow, and probably also because of its weight, this lens can not be easily handheld, and can not produce a reasonable sharp image if not on a reasonable high shutterspeed - nothing below 1/250 at all... 2. Locked down on a solid tripod (I mean a rock solid tripod, and without any mikey mouse battery grip) it will produce tack sharp images and the most beautiful color ever. 3.
Conclusion: I purchased it new and used it about three times in different lighting conditions on my D70. Results were not as sharp as I wanted. After getting a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8, the Sigma was placed back in its original box with its hood, caps, and carrying case and is now resting permanently on a shelf. It's not a bad lens for shooting outdoors in bright sunlight at the zoo or beach, but I would not use it for any paid assignments due to the soft results.
Pros: Price is not bad for a lens of this focal length. It looks plastic but feels solid and heavy. I like the case for storage. Tripod collar secures lens well.
Cons: Much softer than I expected. Looks ridiculous when extended to 400mm with hood on.
Conclusion: I have had this lens for a couple of years and just up graded to the canon 100-400 IS. No comparison, when i think of all the shots that i have taken that i thought i was satisfied with at the time, i now know that if i had the money at the time how great those shots could really have been.
Cons: noise, not real crisp on enlargements and the zoom creep is terrible